Rebuilding Our Government

[montky]

an interesting thread, fkemman11

things like this get real complicated, real fast.

It is brave to have these kinds of discussions so publicly, given the times we live in.

I would rather have a million awkward conversations, than see history repeat itself with folly after folly.

G Santayana "never again".

 

talking about sRFRA's, kritarchy, and the push to end American Exceptionalism/American Sovereignty,

that is sad... though, many factions from all kinds of standpoints, spiritualisms and worldviews... are all circling and trying stuff.

G Carlin said it best perhaps when he said "It's all over, it's all rigged. Heard of a Hobson's Choice? Its the choice you don't make between the devils you dont know and the ones' you 'do'. They don't care about you. They don't."

I don't entirely blame this POTUS - it is a lot of stuff and a confluence of causal chains over a long time.

 

for some tentative ideas,

see after the jump

 

 

 

In order to talk about different models, we also have to model

what a westminster is, and the background. (Adam Smith, Hume, Henry George, Hobbes...)

what forms of governance there are - Gary Edwards of Youtube has a great visual diagram of that, even if some reflections or connections may be wrong...

our different models of futures... what resources there are etc.

yes, that will touch on the great debate - Ehrlich v Simon, Malthusians v Cornucopians...

 

so, to answer your question;

it may be possible, in a multi-party demarchic stochasticon,

to re-centralize the national interest ahead of vested personal interests.

look at the polls; most people are not appreciating the value propositions of existing parties (assuming people make partisan self-interested decisions).

in an era of glasnost, this would be computable and known by all.

we can achieve these pathways, while in keeping with our ethical or moral values, if we so choose it.

We can avoid things like the Toynbee-Huntington Thesis, the Anthropocene/TEOTWAWKI, if we so choose it.

 

I take it that you aspire towards a

"proportional representative participatory democracy", wherein,

citizens of a sovereign nation have universal suffrage and a vote in their federal republic.

 

We can find detente in a multipolar world.

We can find J Sacks Dignity of Difference, rather than effacing 'cosmopolitanism imposed'.

We don't need anyone to tell us what we know to be true - we are so far, the only known source of sentient life in the cosmos, and all in part citizens of the pale blue dot. Being that we are all citizens of a pale blue dot though, doesn't abrogate sovereignty.

Where is the onus of individual nationstates to their own citizens? what business is it of anyones to regulate the conduct of other sovereign nationstates which do no harm?

 

It gets real prime-directive-y, real fast. Fukuyama-ites and moralists from different standpoints alike

base interventions purely on the present and their own values...

not, intergenerationally...

 

 

[Fkemman11]

@ Montky.

 

Well. I'm getting a little better. I think I understood perhaps half of what you said. You obviously go through books with a voracious appetite!! But yeah, its pretty disheartening to see the same scenarios played out year after year and know that there could be a better way of life in general- not just governance. Everyone is so busy pointing fingers at each other and sharpening knives that it seems impossible for anyone to shut-up and actually think- let alone communicate.

 

I had an idea for the future a while back and at the time it seemed brilliant. I won't go into details. But suffice to say I envisioned a society- OUR WORLD- people from every corner of our " pale blue dot" working towards a common goal. Where everyone was satisfied with how they lived and where they worked. But I realized that something like this could never exists unless everyone was willing to sacrifice for the greater good. Of course they aren't. I had a plan for that as well. But forming a plan and implementing it are very different things. So its still sitting there. Maybe I'll write a book about it someday. A small quote though that I always liked "You give a man a fish- you feed him for a day. You teach a man to fish- you feed him for a lifetime!" -????

[TheMastersSon]

I had an idea for the future a while back and at the time it seemed brilliant. I won't go into details. But suffice to say I envisioned a society- OUR WORLD- people from every corner of our " pale blue dot" working towards a common goal. Where everyone was satisfied with how they lived and where they worked. But I realized that something like this could never exists unless everyone was willing to sacrifice for the greater good. Of course they aren't. I had a plan for that as well. But forming a plan and implementing it are very different things. So its still sitting there. Maybe I'll write a book about it someday. A small quote though that I always liked "You give a man a fish- you feed him for a day. You teach a man to fish- you feed him for a lifetime!" -????

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults,

if they are such, because I think a general government necessary for us;

and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of

years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it,

when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government,

being incapable of any other."

- Benjamin Franklin, speech before the Constitutional Convention, 9/17/1787

 

If someone had asked Franklin, "Corrupted by whom or what?". I'm pretty sure I know what his answer would have been. If we are done as a country it was a result of overly (I'd even say absurdly) prolonged success, not failure.

Edited February 28, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[Fkemman11]

"A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy.." - ALDOUS HUXLEY

 

"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election.." - BILL VAUGHAN

 

I think the main problem with most societies throughout history is that they were formed as a vessel for making war. If not open war- then certainly everything associated with it. Then everything else was just kind of an afterthought. First and foremost was the ability for a given people to be able to "defend their homeland". The fact is that this fundamentally paranoid mentality has been instilled in every society by its leaders. Until this changes- nothing else will.

 

I remember someone telling me years ago about some top secret study here in our own country about this very thing. the point of this study was to determine A) How to transition from a "War" society into a more passive one. B) How to influence other countries into doing the same. If I remember correctly one of the "sticky" points of this was the removal of the 2cd Amendment. I'm not sure what the conclusion was. But it didn't really matter because the President who had organized this think tank lay dead in Dallas. This was relayed to me by a cousin who worked in intelligence.

[TheMastersSon]

Well my state just voted last November to require federal "authorization" for gun ammunition purchases, among a long list of other gun restrictions and requirements. Please see here for a partial list:

 

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article123844534.html

 

It's fascism in its purest form, yet the initiative passed with a substantial majority in my state. Scary imo, but fortunately our 2nd Amendment is one of the few that cater to our country's right-wing instead of our left, therefore it's protected fiercely by our federal court system including our Supreme Court. I have no doubt that most or all of this new law will be tossed immediately as the blatant constitutional violation that it is. But in the meantime my country of birth (United States) has been replaced by a new one called the United Federal Government, where citizens are required to get permission from their own employees before they're allowed to defend themselves and their own families. Simply mind-boggling reactionary stupidity and please blame Gavin Newsom and my state's current senior senator for much or most of it. To give an idea, the official name of this initiative was the "Safety for All Act". I can't decide if the title smacks more of pre-war Germany or current-day China, but the claim that any government in any free republic either can or even should have this capacity makes my stomach turn. Especially a government in de facto bankruptcy and beholden to if not essentially controlled by totalitarian Communism.

Edited February 28, 2017 by TheMastersSon